CHESTER UYCO, WINSTON UYCHIYONG, and CHERRY C. UYCO-ONG vs.

VICENTE LO
Facts:
 The disputed marks in this case are the "HIPOLITO & SEA HORSE & TRIANGULAR
DEVICE," "FAMA," and other related marks, service marks and trade names of Casa
Hipolito S.A. Portugal appearing in kerosene burners.
 Respondent Vicente Lo and Philippine Burners Manufacturing
Corporation (PBMC) filed a complaint for violation of Section 169.1, in relation to
Section 170, of RA 8293.||| 
Contention:
Respondent
 Lo claimed in his complaint that Gasirel, the owner of the disputed marks, executed a
deed of assignment transferring these marks in his favor, to be used in all countries
except for those in Europe and America.
 In a test buy, Lo purchased from National Hardware kerosene burners with the subject
marks and the designations "Made in Portugal" and "Original Portugal" in the wrappers.
These products were manufactured by Wintrade. 
 Lo claimed that as the assignee for the trademarks, he had not authorized Wintrade to use
these marks, nor had Casa Hipolito S.A. Portugal. While a prior authority was given to
Wintrade's predecessor-in-interest, Casa Hipolito S.A. Portugal had already revoked this
authority through a letter of cancellation dated May 31, 1993.
 The kerosene burners manufactured by Wintrade have caused confusion, mistake and
deception on the part of the buying public. Lo stated that the real and genuine burners are
those manufactured by its agent, PBMC. ||| 
Petitioner
 they are the officers of Wintrade which owns the subject trademarks and their variants
evidenced by the certificates of registration with the Intellectual Property Office they
presented
 They derived their authority to use the marks from Casa Hipolito S.A. Portugal through
Wonder, their predecessor-in-interest.
 PBMC had already ceased to be a corporation and, thus, the licensing agreement between
PBMC and Lo could not be given effect, particularly because the agreement was not
notarized and did not contain the provisions required by Section 87 of RA 8293.
  Lo failed to sufficiently prove that the burners bought from National Hardware were
those that they manufactured.
 The marks "Made in Portugal" and "Original Portugal" are merely descriptive and refer to
the source of the design and the history of manufacture. |||
Probable cause
  Chief State Prosecutor found probable cause to indict petitioner
 The DOJ issued a resolution affirming the finding of probable cause
 CA affirmed DOJ’s decision
SC RULING
The petitioners reiterate their argument that the products bought during the test buy
bearing the trademarks in question were not manufactured by, or in any way connected with, the
petitioners and/or Wintrade. They also allege that the words "Made in Portugal" and "Original
Portugal" refer to the origin of the design and not to the origin of the goods.
The evidence shows that petitioners, who are officers of Wintrade, placed the words
"Made in Portugal" and "Original Portugal" with the disputed marks knowing fully well —
because of their previous dealings with the Portuguese company — that these were the marks
used in the products of Casa Hipolito S.A. Portugal. More importantly, the products that
Wintrade sold were admittedly produced in the Philippines, with no authority from Casa Hipolito
S.A. Portugal.
The law on trademarks and trade names precisely precludes a person from profiting from
the business reputation built by another and from deceiving the public as to the origins of
products. These facts support the consistent findings of the State Prosecutor, the DOJ and the CA
that probable cause exists to charge the petitioners with false designation of origin. The fact that
the evidence did not come from Lo, but had been given by the petitioners, is of no significance.